 So we are now going to be talking about section 18 in the version of the T-Bell that house transportation was working on yesterday. I don't think there is an expectation that this language is going to change. I am going to do just the barest of walkthroughs because I looked ahead on your agenda and I know you've got a slide that coming up with way more information about the transportation alternatives grant program that I'm going to be able to provide. But before you look at this language, the transportation alternatives grant program is funded entirely with federal money and the local match. There are not transportation fund dollars that goes to it. The eligibility is dictated by federal law and in the IJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the amount of money that is going to be available under the transportation alternatives grant program has increased. So what section 18 is going to do in this form is it's cleaning up some of the outdated language you'll see in subdivision F1 at the bottom of page 26. It's talking about what was going to happen in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 and then in the next subdivision in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. So again, deleting that language not applicable anymore, and then starting in fiscal year 2024. Instead of having there be a $1,100,000 as the sort of presumptive amount that is going to go to municipalities for environmental mitigation projects. There can be 50% of the total amount that's available in grant program funds, unless there is less interest from the applications for those environmental mitigation projects, in which case it would be lower. And then the balance and this language is on lines eight to 10 of page 27. The balance would go to any eligibility activity in accordance with the priority. So that's an expectation that's established in what was subdivision for but would now be subdivision to so shifting away from this presumptive minimum of $1,100,000 and then having it be a percentage of the total funds available and the expectation is that that will almost always be above $1,100,000 based on how much is expected to come to Vermont, unless of course the interest from the municipalities that are applying is less than that. And with that, as sort of your understanding of what the language would do. I think you probably want to hear from the agency on the program in general and the history. I want to go with accordance with the priorities established in subdivision to. Just scroll down a little bit starting at line 11, you'll see the subdivision for us struck out and it's now going to be subdivision to and it's giving preferential waiting to projects involving as a primary feature a bicycle or pedestrian facility. That's it. That's our priority. I'm seeing a nod from Scott Robertson. I can start whenever you're ready just give me the signal. It says in accordance with the priorities established. And that is the balance of the language. And so our priorities are only one. That's true. So, there also is that you need to remember that there is all of the federal eligibility criteria that's there. So this is just the priority that Vermont has put in place, sort of as a narrow wing of federal eligibility. So let's get the link to federal eligibility up in the beginning of the language. And that is awards should be made eligible entities as defined under 23 USC section 133H and limiting in activities that are authorized under federal law. And I believe there's been an expanding of what activities are authorized in the I I J. She'll be awarded in accordance with the priority, they shall be awarded. So what we're saying is 50% shall be awarded to, but then we say, she'll give preferential waiting to projects involving as a primary feature. So I'm having a hard time reconciling the language on on 10 with the language on in line 1450 and 16 and that section that's why I'm struggling with the language. Okay, so the thing I would point out there is, this is current law, it is moving what is currently on lines one, two and three at the top of page 27 that's being struck out. And it's saying that it should be done in accordance with the priorities established in subdivision for what will now become subdivision to. So I think to the extent that your question is about what really is existing law it might be helpful to hear from the agency in terms of how they are interpreting that. The other thing I would point out in the language and this is existing statute is that the degree of preferential waiting and the determination is that the complete discretion of the agency. So there is a lot of discretion that then is being given to the agency in both interpreting this language and in how it actually is going forward in the evaluation of what the waiting should be when it comes to that limited amount of preferential criteria that's in statute, and I can look into the history of how this language sort of came to be, but since it's not a change from existing statute I didn't dive into the legislative history there but I certainly can't put something you're interested in. I guess maybe nobody else is struggling with what I could say online nine shall be awarded for any shall be awarded. So there are some priorities, which means that 50%, we said what shall be awarded in accordance with the priorities of subdivision to, and then subdivision to now, which is existing language I guess, shall. So the priorities established and I only see. I don't see a priorities being priorities are preferential waiting to projects involving bike or pen. So, one is using the term priority and the other is using preferential waiting. And so shall be awarded. I don't know together. I'm just having a hard time with priorities. Okay, I think I understand a little bit more now, and I would say, if you look at it the shall be awarded would apply to the any eligible activity so think of that as as one discreet piece. For the next part it needs to be in accordance with the priorities, and to the extent that you're seeing a disconnect between you're saying priorities, yet then in the other language it's preferential. I think that is meant to trying to sort of think about how the sections fit together, say that it is a priority to give preferential waiting to this limited subset of projects that have as a primary feature a bicycle or pedestrian feature. So before you're having a disconnect there with using priority and preferential treatment. And I think we certainly could craft a modification of that language that maybe has some more clarity and consistency in the phrasing. But for purposes of the language that you have here with house transportation's intent with the language to only be changing that 1.1 million minimum. The other language was was modified, but you're going to get the villain you can modify it all you want. Well, but they're also talking about, I guess, oh, and the balance shall be. So, um, so I, they're adding the language online in chat as well. I don't have a problem with 50%, rather than getting a specific figure, but it's just the additional language shall be awarded. But that language is actually moving down from what struck out on lines one to three. It's just rearranging the structure of the section a little bit but that is existing language it's existing phrasing that is in the statute now. You know that's the whole thing when you go back and look at something that raises questions even though it's in place so all they want to do is get rid of the dollar exact dollar figure and say 50%, which is pretty straightforward. So I wish I hadn't looked at it now I'm using too much gray cells. I don't have very many left. Alright. Okay. Who would Scott are you on who's next with us this morning. I know you've been confident. Can you hear me right now. Yes we can. Okay, perfect. Thank you, Senator Mazza. Yeah, my name is Scott Robertson. I'm an engineer for the trains project manager as well as the coordinator for the transportation alternative program grant solicitation. So, and I've put together a presentation to go over the basic highlights of this. And I believe Joe Parago, the manager of municipal assistance is also on here with us. Okay, so here I go I'm going to share my screen real quick. And hopefully you can see that. Yeah. So the transportation alternative program. Like was already said it's we we budget about $2.2 million a year for solicitation and that's all federal funding. We have a $300,000 cap per grant with an 80% federal 20% local funding split. And there is a preferential waiting applied to bike and pet pedestrian facilities when applicable I threw that when applicable in there because if we do set aside, you know, environmental mitigation funding. The preference for that that those preferences don't apply to those funds. Sorry about that. We have a lot of applicants. We have a lot of eligible applicants here of agencies but basically 99% of applicants are towns, we can't even count on one hand. Applicants that aren't down so basically towns apply for this funding, even though it is possible for a few other agencies to apply. We have seven projects. We have seven types of eligible projects and this is a bit wordy. Basically, category A and B here. For a long time they were the meat of the whole thing there that is the bike and pedestrian sidewalks shared use paths, ADA compliant ramps, and associated items like safety lighting, things like that line striping. We have a lot of applicants here in categories A and B. Category C is conversion of abandoned railroad corridors for trails for for bikes and pedestrians. Category D is for turnout overlooks and viewing areas which we have not seen one application for that yet. Well, category E community improvement activities includes historic preservation things like covered bridges or train stations we've had a few applications for that vegetation management practices in a very utilitarian sense not a beautification sense is an eligible application and archaeological activities relating to transportation are also eligible. And now here we are with category F, which is our new focus with the set asides. Environmental mitigation activities and subcategory I is basically the stormwater management control category for a lot of types of projects and I have a slide with some examples coming up here. This is also where salt sheds kind of fits into the program. And then we also have some category F2 which is wildlife mortality mitigation projects and category G is a bit redundant it's the old safe routes to school program that is incorporated into this program. So, a little bit about salt sheds and I know that comes up a bit. FHWA has allowed us the flexibility to actually incorporate these salt sheds with these funds. So they're eligible under the environmental mitigation category. We consider them on a case by case basis. They're kind of tough to score because with respect to water quality improvement, you know, because comparing, you know, the scoring committee comparing elements, it's it. It's a bit challenging, but but we do. Here's the our incorporated language basically any environment mitigation activity including pollution prevention and pollution evapement activities to address stormwater management control. Related to highway construction runoff. So, basically, we do get an awful lot of salt shit applications now. It's especially when there's a set aside I get those calls all the time is this the year where we've got a set aside for stormwater. If not, some municipalities will wait until we do before they apply. So, I'll be trans and I'm mainly coordinating this is a policy documents which which will help define and clarify the parameters regarding scope cost eligibility and scoring for future salt shit applications, just to clear things up, because the, the application seem to be expanding into perhaps more than the original intent was but still working on fine tuning that. Here's an example of a bunch of environment to get mitigation projects anywhere from planning studies for phosphorus control or stormwater infantry inventories to gravel wetlands permeable pavers check dams. Detention ponds which are very common gravel wetlands are very popular and and for the dollar provide the best bang for the buck fresh being water. So here's some examples of the things that might be eligible in our in the TAP program. So a bit of history just so you guys are aware. TAP started in 2013 before that was the transportation enhancement program and all categories applied up until 2016 where we started this set aside for 50%. This stated as 1.1 million set aside for stormwater and we that that was in effect for two years, then in 2018 and 19 it was 100% stormwater quality improvement projects. Then in 2020 up until 2021 it was all categories again, and here we are back into 50% for state fiscal year 2022, as it was solicited that way. And here's just a quick little chart that I put together on some history of demand versus awarded. We always try to stick very close to 2.2 million in the award category but back in 2018 this goes back five years. The demand we received $5.7 million in applications. And I believe the pandemic years once we get down to 2020, it kind of dropped a bit and I believe the pandemic might have something to do with that but we normally get between $4 to $6 million of applications. That boils down to about 30 applications we normally award about eight of those to utilize the 2.2 million. And this is just a quick summary of what the last five years look like. Real quick overview that's it. I believe that's my last slide it is. And I can keep sharing either what any one of these slides if you'd like or answer questions. Any questions committee at this time. I have a question center right ahead. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you. I'm going to go back to Senator Kitchell's line of questioning about the prioritization of preferential waiting to bicycle pedestrian facilities as I see the actual breakout here it almost seems like we are sending more money on non environmental focuses over the years past like disproportionately and I'm just, I'm trying to come to understand why we wouldn't want to as a state, motivate the municipalities with preferential treatment to focus on the environmental item F of your products environmental mitigation activities, and then also the safe routes to school program. It almost seems like the focus on bicycle and pedestrian growth facilities is neglecting the infrastructure we have the safety and the environmental concerns. Where does this language come from the the prior preferential waiting for bicycle and pedestrians what's the motivation for that in your mind if you might speak to that. If you read back, just in history, it's federally driven and and historically driven that that that's what this the original intent was not maybe not the intent but but the likelihood of an application was much higher for something like sidewalk or shared use path or that's just that's just where it all seemed to focus on the most. Until we have these set of sides, the environmental mitigation projects were a small percentage of our application so maybe it's it could just be what was looking for at the time, and that the history goes back into the TV program which goes back, you know, to the 90s. That's just how precipitated so I'm not sure where it all started, but that's as until we started setting this aside it was mostly by competitive related projects. Now Joel maybe you've got some more to add to that. I can a little bit, excuse my voice a little bit for the record I'm Joel Parago the Missile Assistance Program Manager. I think, and this predates me a little bit to the intent here was that back when the clean water bill passed. It was an opportunity to put some more funding into our obligations as part of the clean water bill. And so one way to capture that was to sort of enhance this environmental mitigation category by putting this set aside out. In the years, you know, of Scott's got it up there still yeah I mean, 2018 and 2019 all that funding was put out for environmental mitigation only. And that was to basically show that we were, we were putting that money into clean water investments, but historically speaking, both the transportation enhancements and transportation alternatives prior to clean water bill, you know, I've Scott said 95% of our applications were always in that trash, excuse me bike pad type facility. It's sort of like always been the place the to go place for municipalities when they want to build a sidewalk and that sort of thing so hopefully that clarifies and answers your question. A quick follow up. I would just wonder why we wouldn't want to do a policy lens in focus or at least encourage or make equal weighting the environmental potential projects that's such an important topic. Well, keep in mind too though that so with this set aside the environmental and it like Scott started to get into comparing an environmental mitigation project to a bike pad project is difficult to do and so with this set aside, they you know they're on there. And off to the side here, they get that half, half of the appropriation, and now the remaining categories, the bike pad projects as well as all the other projects that Scott went through the different categories. Get the other 50% with the bike pads being preferentially weighted on that side. Thank you. Okay. The other questions comments. I guess not. Okay. All right, nobody else has anything the agency anything else to offer. Anybody, and the anything offer. Okay, well thank you very much appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.